Citation needed
> (2) Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen.
> (2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
In Article 9, it also defines:
> (2) Vereinigungen, deren Zwecke oder deren Tätigkeit den Strafgesetzen zuwiderlaufen oder die sich gegen die verfassungsmäßige Ordnung oder gegen den Gedanken der Völkerverständigung richten, sind verboten.
> (2) Associations whose aims or activities contravene the criminal laws, or that are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, shall be prohibited.
If you have the commented version, with comments from the creators and several former and current constitutional court judges, I recommend you read the relevant comments. They specifically discusses these part, and argue that the right to own property, start a group (Vereinigung, including Verein, Unternehmen, etc), own something as a group, etc solely exist to serve society.
This right has obligations, such as the obligation that if you do not need your property, but it can be used to serve society, you can lose the right to it (as has happened in Hamburg in Winter 2015/2016, when a company refused to rent a building to the government so they could use it as refugee accomodation, and, as a result, the building was seized from the company, and used as it anyway).
The comments and quoted constitutional court cases also discuss and outline the limitations, and other situations. For example, if property is seized, then the organization has to be given the market value in return.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
The right of assembly is only given in indoor spaces, which you own, as long as zero aggression happens.
For outdoor assemblies, you'll need approval of the municipal government (and the police can dissolve your assembly, as happened in Hamburg during the G20 protests).
In the same way, as I mentioned, the right to property is frequently limited by nations. In the US, commonly for public projects the state seizes land without repaying the owners, and Germany does similar stuff.
* not in all cases (e.g. Spontandemonstration, where there is no time to file an application)
* the municipal government needs a really good reason to not give approval
* the courts are very sympathetic to virtually any cause should a municipal government decide to forbid a gathering.
> (and the police can dissolve your assembly,
* if there is true danger to the general public. Again, courts are going to slap the police around if they do this just because.
I know how easy it is to use a blanket statement as a base for another blanket statement which is equally one-sided, but please try to build arguments in a less ... attackable way.
Have you looked at even one of the cases in Hamburg with G20?
Spontandemonstrationen that were immediately dissolved with teargas.
No approval for demonstrations without reason, or even situations where courts said the demonstration is legal, and the police dissolved them anyway.
Yeah, I doubt there will be any repercussions, de Maiziere will jail some more left-wing journalists, Merkel will become chancellor again, and in Hamburg instead of the Mayor maybe some low-level police officer will resign.
Although every police officer involved in this said that the ridiculous orders came from high up.
Have a look at Stuttgart. They lost a high-ranking police officer and the MP was not reelected.
For outdoor assemblies you need to inform a designated authority (which is not the same as an approval) and comply with certain restrictions.
[1]: https://www.bundestag.de/grundgesetz The text of the German consitution law
[2]: https://europa.eu/european-union/law/treaties_en The text of the EU treaties
If you disagree with a community’s decision, you can lobby to have them changed, or you can move elsewhere – but you can’t, just because you disagree, disobey them. Or you’ll have to expect that if you try to disobey their decisions, they’ll respond accordingly.
I’m not suggesting anything a society should do as response to a foreign company arriving there, violating laws, and refusing to obey, but generally this simply ends up bad for the company.
I disagree with IP laws, but I can’t just pirate content and sell remixes either, by hiding behind a shell corporation. Not even if I’m willing to pay the fine (Kim Dotcom, for example, made enough profit that he was able, and willing to pay the license fees, and still would have turned a profit, but this was denied).